I may be wrong but I don't think there will be any difference between the ML proof charge and the BL. The laws of proof are governed by CIP and they would view all guns in the same way from a testing pov.
Whether testing a 1850 London made pinfire or a 2019 Turkish 5 shot semi-auto, the test is the same (other than variation for chamber length, steel pressures etc) and I don't see why they should view a ML any different.
Only variation I could imagine would be black powder v nitro but I think the pressures would be similar.
The test is defined by chamber length, standard/superior pressure and nitro/black.
Here you have the challenge in reproofing old guns: the test is designed to protect the simplistic, ignorant user not the well-informed collector. I and my colleagues who 'specialise' in getting guns back into use after a century of collecting dust and rust deal with this on a weekly or monthly basis and the unpredictability of the proof house in their decisions on fail or pass drives us round the bend! To be fair, the decisions they have to make on pass/fail are often very border line and we are sometimes blessed with a pass that in all honesty might be considered a fail. The test results' can sometimes be surprisingly nuanced and I am often grateful that a degree of discretion still remains.
Last edited by Toby Barclay; 06/11/19 02:26 AM.
